< March 10	March 12 >

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. bibliomaniac 1 5 06:08, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Croatian jazz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This seems like it would make sense if there were an article on Croatian jazz. The only content is Category:Croatian jazz musicians, which I don't think is for musicians who play Croatian jazz but jazz musicians who are Croatian. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:44, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- The parent is a container, which should only contain categories of this kind. There are at least half a dozen similar categories where a national category only has a single entry. We should change all or none. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:47, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree as most, if not all, of those categories you refer to were created by a prolific overcategorizer. I'd like to get a precedent started here about a need for a category such as this for a type of jazz that doesn't exist as opposed to something like Brazilian jazz or Finnish jazz. If these are preferred to keep as container cats, I'm fine with that. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:26, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant category layer with only one subcategory, also seemingly inaccurate because musical genre and nationality are two different things. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:57, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Marcocapelle. Croatian Jazz appears to be a misnomer. The only subcat will remain in the much more appropriate Category:Jazz musicians by nationality and Category:Croatian musicians by genre. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:36, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: upmerge and delete. – Fayenatic London 22:11, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting
Category:Italian film company stubs
Category:Polish film company stubs
Category:Portuguese film company stubs
Category:Spanish film company stubs

Nominator's rationale: Unproposed, and insufficient articles to justify stub categories. Templates also nominated for renaming & upmerging. Her Pegship (?) 18:04, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. – Fayenatic London 22:09, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming and upmerging to Category:Film company stubs (per instructions at TfD)
((IT-film-company-stub)) --> ((Italy-film-company-stub))
((PL-film-company-stub)) --> ((Poland-film-company-stub))
((PT-film-company-stub)) --> ((Portugal-film-company-stub))
((ES-film-company-stub)) --> ((Spain-film-company-stub))

Nominator's rationale: Unproposed, and incorrectly formed. Stub categories also nominated for deletion (see above). Her Pegship (?) 18:04, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:02, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Linguistics educators to Category:Linguists

Nominator's rationale: Nearly all of the people in this list are simply linguists; those who are not are better defined by other things (dialect coaches, etc.). This isn't really a cohesive category, and there isn't a significant divide between 'linguists' and 'linguistics educators' MalignantMouse (talk) 17:38, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with nom's rationale but simply delete instead of merge because the articles are already in the tree of Category:Linguists by nationality (I checked every article). Note that Category:Linguistics writers may be nominated for the same reason. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:08, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since as applied merger will just create duplicate categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:53, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Predecessors of the Boston and Maine Railroad. Kbdank71 03:39, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Predecessors of the Boston and Maine Corporation to Category:Predecessors of the Boston and Maine Railroad

Nominator's rationale: The main article for this category was renamed to Boston and Maine Railroad following a requested move with strong consensus. This category should be moved to match the present title of its parent article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:49, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:00, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge/rename per nom. Kbdank71 03:43, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians in Kiev to Category:Wikipedians in Kyiv
Propose merging Category:Wikipedians from Kyiv into the former (added 11 March)

Nominator's rationale: Kiev's name has now been changed to Kyiv Paninigenie (talk) 09:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Kyiv. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:06, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also Support renaming to match Kyiv. Uncontroversial, matches WP:C2D. - I notice that Category:Wikipedians_from_Kyiv also exists. Maybe after renaming the "in" one, merge this "from" one into it? Psypherium^{talk page} 09:05, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisted after adding the second category to the nomination. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 15:09, 11 March 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Rename and Merge per nom. In principle Wikipedians from somewhere and Wikipedians in somewhere can be distinct categories, but in practice the userbox populating the "from" category uses lives in, so a merge is appropriate. Note that Category:Wikipedians from Kyiv is the older category, and there was a past discussion in 2010 at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 June 22#Category:User Kyiv * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Kbdank71 03:52, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Modeling and simulation to Category:Simulation

Nominator's rationale: merge, simulation requires modeling anyway, so the scope of this category is not any different from its parent. The article Modeling and simulation gives the impression that "M&S" is a buzzword specifically in engineering, but still for categorization that does not help much. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- The usual expansion of M&S in my country is Marks and Spencer. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:54, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Simulation refers normally to a much smaller scope than scientific modeling. Both expressions are maybe close to each other but not at all the same. Don't let us trifle with it! --Just N. (talk) 14:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose /Keep It's a big number of entries and subcategories. So it's not at all reasonable to merge and get a huge one, no longer overseeable. --Just N. (talk) 14:26, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is reasonable to merge when there is no clear difference. By what criterion would you make a distinction? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:14, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. The reason for merger is not WP:SMALLCAT, so size is irrelevant. And it's worth pointing out that, contrary to Just N.'s claim that Simulation refers normally to a much smaller scope than scientific modeling, Category:Modeling and simulation is a subcategory of Category:Simulation, implying that simulation is a larger scope. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:20, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Military modeling and simulation and split to parent Category:simulation. There is already Military simulation and Glossary of military modeling and simulation, and the category contains a lot of military-related articles, so renaming and repurposing with that emphasis would make sense and be useful. – Fayenatic London 17:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(as nom) it is perfectly fine to create a military subcategory while for non-military topics the merger goes ahead as nominated. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:46, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, but as the category creator put this within Category:Military acquisition and Category:Operations research from day 1, it appears that the military application was in his mind from the start. Renaming would allow that thought process to be traced, whereas the page history would be lost in the event of creating a new sub-cat and merging the current one. – Fayenatic London 19:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have no objection to this sequence of processing. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional thoughts on renaming?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Category:Hecatomnid dynasty and Category:Burial sites of Middle Eastern royal families per nom. merge per nom Kbdank71 03:53, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Burial sites of the Hecatomnid dynasty to Category:Hecatomnid dynasty and Category:Burial sites of Middle Eastern royal families

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, only one article in the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:57, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:29, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge per nom. Kbdank71 03:57, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Burial sites of the Seljuk dynasty to Category:Seljuk dynasty, Category:Burial sites of Turkic dynasties and Category:Burial sites of Middle Eastern royal families

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, only one article in the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:53, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:11, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Cirripedia to Category:Barnacles

Nominator's rationale: I don't see how there is any difference between the categories' scope. 1234 kb of .rar files (is this dangerous?) 00:43, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 05:45, 11 March 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Support -- but leave cat-redirect. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:40, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Television stations in the Coachella Valley. Kbdank71 04:16, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Television stations in Palm Springs, California to Category:Television stations in the Coachella Valley

Nominator's rationale: Eliminate redundancy (Palm Springs is in the Coachella Valley) Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:45, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Agree with what is stated. OvertAnalyzer (talk)

Merge the edit history of the former into the latter, but a Coachella cat should not include KJLA or KPOM-LP (the latter of which needs some work). Otherwise the merger is fine. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse merge, the category tree is mostly organized by city. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:01, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To determine which direction the merge should go.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:45, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still inclined to go with the merge as originally described by nominator. Originally these were all within the category “Television stations in Palm Springs, California”. Many of the stations listed are not in Palm Springs, and are as far away as Indio, which is a much bigger city than Palm Springs. I created a separate category for “Television stations in the Coachella Valley”, and moved the stations not actually in Palm Springs to the Coachella Valley category. Although Marcocapelle makes a reasonable point that other categories are organized by city, taking that approach leaves many California television stations outside of any sub category. Perhaps a better approach would be to organize television stations by county, but that would be a major change in the way US television stations are categorized. OvertAnalyzer (talk) 02:02, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@OvertAnalyzer: What Mvcg's incremental changes (if you look at his CfD nominations, a bunch of these are of this type) is to aggregate city categories to the media market level where there may be multiple cities, e.g. Category:Television stations in Hampton Roads. This is probably the appropriate level of categorization. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:52, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why would it be more appropriate? They are licensed to Palm Springs. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:08, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

March 11

Category:Réunionnais people stubs

Category:Croatian jazz

Category:Various country film company stubs

Templates:Various country film company stub templates

Category:Linguistics educators

Category:Predecessors of the Boston and Maine Corporation

Category:Wikipedians in Kiev

Category:Modeling and simulation

Category:Monoclinic crystal system

Category:Burial sites of the Hecatomnid dynasty

Category:Burial sites of the Seljuk dynasty

Category:Cirripedia

Category:Television stations in Palm Springs, California